The letter to Najran | Syed Hasnain Bukhari

Mufti Munawwar ateeq rizvi sahib's video has been requested to the up loader to make it private since you have seen it.

 

the excellence of ahl al-bayt is undisputed.

i saw the link and shaykh monawwar indeed made a mistake.

monawwar sahib cites the qur'an and says: 'ashiratana wa ashiratakum' as if it were a part of the verse instead of 'anfusana wa anfusakaum'. and i am sure he has confused it - and i am sure that he is not doing that deliberately, and he will certainly not consider it a part of the ayah when it is not. he should issue a clarification - mainly because he is a public figure and also that his talk is on record, a clarification and apology is the right way to go.

as for the other issue of taking sayyiduna abu bakr and sayyiduna umar and their children - apparently a report in ibn asakir's tarikh mentions it [see shawkani's fat'H al-Qadeer; curiously, nawaz quoted "imam" al-shawkani as his proof some time ago for the 72 sects argument.]

almost all sunni authorities and tafasir mention that only ahl al-bayt were with RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam; imam razi also says: 'ajma'u' indicating a unanimous agreement that the sons, women and selves mentioned in the verse are imam Hasan, imam Husayn, sayyidah zahrah and mawla ali (raDiyallahu `anhum). monawwar sahib should have clarified that.

alHamdulillah. at least we are on the same side on certain issues. but my reaction was because of this widespread disease and it appeared that you too had caught the bug. because this event of najran is the main argument of those who want to become christian-muslims. al-iyadhu billah.

i encourage you to read MFM.

Allah ta'ala knows best.

 

The letter to Najran was delivered as a talk on the excellence of ahl al-bayt(a) and as a part of Muharram Lecture. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the kufr that is perennial ism and there is absolutely no salvation for anyone who does not have Imaan in Rasul Allah صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم. On the whole everything has been stated in line with numerous texts and the Life of Rasul Allah صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم and the event described is what was understood by the speaker. When the Christians said salaam to Rasul Allah صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم on their second time after change of clothes He صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم replied to their salaam. The ayah al-Mubahala is one of the unique fadail of ahl al-bayt and that is the purpose of the talk.
[On a side note, though it was not mentioned in the talk but Christians were allowed to pray in the masjid according to their own religion and it does not mean that they will go to jannat but The Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم allowed them. An Example of his ikhlaq towards non-muslims. I have read somewhere by a leading scholar of the 8th century AH that this proves that ahl al-kitaab are are allowed to pray in a masjid as long as it does not become a regular occurrence.]

as for what shaykh munawwar ateeq rizvi sahib had said-see my post below- then someone has uploaded that part again but I do not want to share it in public as I wouldn't want the wobblers or rafidis to take advantage of that. However Shaykh Abu hasan I will Private message you the link.

 

so given that PAQ was your teacher, and tahir is your current qayid, it is natural that you spice up narrations and distort them

Things are not well in the tafzili camp at the moment. y......com is having a go at PAQ and Budally who not so long ago was a darling of the tafzilis ready to take up the baton and debate with the whole world. No honour among.......and all that!!!!

 

[Aale Imran 3:64] Say (O dear Prophet Mohammed), “O People given the Book(s)! Come towards a word which is common between us and you, that we shall worship no one except Allah, and that we shall not ascribe any partner to Him, and that none of us shall take one another as lords besides Allah”; then if they do not accept say, “Be witness that(only)we are Muslims.”

The verse commands the Holy Prophet to CALL THEM towards it – which means they had clearly strayed away from the path! They had LEFT the main basics of belief (Tawheed -monotheism), and were being called back to it!

The verse further clarifies it by “then if they do not accept”.

This Ayah is as clear as any other: only an idiot will say that our beliefs are common.

 

I think it was Imam Ja'far Sadiq (radhiAllahuanhu) who said something to the effect: O Sadaats! Don't get complacent - if you cannot withstand the fire of this world despite your lineage how do you expect to fare in the next world?

Note that this is from a leader of the sayyids to other sayyids.

 

that is your imagination shah sahib. we don't have any personal grudge against you. actually, i had even developed a liking for you as i espied a streak of haqq-goyi, that is the hallmark of saadat e kiraam. but unfortunately, that spark is not continuous and you continue to be among heretics, cheering zanadiqah and parroting their nonsense. i earnestly appeal to you to shun and forsake that baggage - and come back to traditional sunniyat. that would require you to swallow some pride and turn your back on certain things that are dear to you [such as tafzili ideas].

besides, we have a field day with your teachers and other elders; with you it can be a walk in the park. [after all you are not a Haywan e mantiq, you are just a Haywan e naTiq. see @38.00]

but we also try to be fair. see in spite of harsh reprimands from sunni ulama, i still consider that JJ's insulting comments were a product of tablighi/devbandi culture of disrespect. JJ specifically did not intend to insult sayyidah ayishah - though the consequence was an insult. now, can this be extrapolated to accuse him of disrespecting or insulting RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam? i don't think so.

because we can use ta'wil to exempt and excuse a person in serious issues such as takfir etc; but we cannot use a ta'wil to imply that his statement amounts to kufr. this we said, even before your speech and your mentioning shaykh monawwar's purported slip.

so it is certainly not personal.

then there is the case of mistakes. everyone makes them, except anbiya'a, who are ma'Sum. but when such mistakes are made in the course of trashing elder ulama and attempting to hack at the foundations of sunni creed (like your teacher and pir - dunno if he is ex- now), it is ironic and i take umbrage and will work to put that person back in his place. obviously, Allah ta'ala will never allow people who attack His awliya'a to flourish, so PAQS going down was inevitable; but the backlash is to keep sunnis from being deceived by glib talkers. [like it or not, pir abdul qadir is an orator - regardless of his accuracy. but he knows how to keep the audience on their seats. same case with tahir with all his theatrics and shouting. you need to go to toastmasters to improve your skills to enlighten the audience in the future.]

but if a sunni scholar makes a mistake in the course of his speech, we will acknowledge the mistake but we will give him space to recover. because his mistake is not "up-himself" or "big-himself" like your pir/teacher PAQ does all the time.

i haven't read any scholar - sayyid or otherwise - who speaks of great men and SaHabah like they were school kids and deserve a shrift from a man centuries after their age. that too when every speech of his is riddled with false notions, wrong derivations, mix-ups, mashups, weird ideas and fantasies. same thing with tahir zindiq, except that - PAQ is more 'scholarly' than tahir. remind me to tell you the story about 'mandooka'.

-----
so given that PAQ was your teacher, and tahir is your current qayid, it is natural that you spice up narrations and distort them.

topic might be identical - and since i have not seen shaykh monawwar's talk i will reserve my comments for later. but your speech is still up. given your rafidi leanings, you speak about Hasanayn and their parents with more care and respect than you do about RasulAllah SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam.

indeed, Hasanayn kareemayn and their parents are dear to us and we respect them - but we cannot claim about Husayn which we deny for their blessed grandfather SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam. BLINK? blink again.

would you introduce or explain the battle with baTil - such as yazid. would you say: "here was ibn ziyad and imam aali maqam stood up and said, come ahlan wa sahlan. let us talk. stay with us, see us ahl al-bayt - the family of your prophet. imam husayn respected them."

would you say that? even though they were purported muslims! yet, you claim for RasulAllah sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam what you abhor for imam Husayn and so confidently say: "he respected them..." concerning polytheist priests?

sub'HanAllah. unlike your depiction, it was the majestic Messenger of Allah with his immense awe speaking to a bunch of priests.

narmi e khuu e leenat pey dayim durud
garmi e shaan e saTwat pe lakhoN salam.
jis ke aagey khinchi gardaneN jhuk gayiN
us khuda daad shawkat pe lakhon salam

you mention @ 30.45 'sayyidah fatimah breaking a rule' whereas whatever RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam does IS the rule. in the whole narration you never deemed it important to highlight the greatness of our Master SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam. theek hai, you may say, that it is already understood within the context. but a layman only hears of you praising and highlighting the importance of the ahl al-bayt, the ahl al-kisa'a. one should have mentioned, and along with these great personages is the sayyidu'l khalq leading them to mubahala so the common man doesn't miss the point.

30.09 knocks on the door prophet himself carries imam husain and hasan mujtaba is holding his finger. how old are these..thereabouts[?]..six or seven. right? shouldn't the kids stay at home? why didn't their parents carry them? why didn't imam ali..why didn't he carry them? but no.

and then fatimah zahrah salamullahi alayha; who - actually - hardly seen in public - you read history, you don't see fatimah everywhere. she's breaking a rule, fatimah zahra is walking in front of... hundreds of thousands watching..they are going into the grounds, the plains of mubahala.

so the prophet SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam is in front; hasan is on this finger, Husayn, Huzur paak is carrying; behind Huzur paak is fatimah zahrah, and behind fatimah zahrah, salamullahi alayha is imam ali alayhi's salam.

...nad'u abna'ana wa abna'akum; abna'ana here.
nisa'ana right behind - nisa...fatimah
and then anfusana. and then right behind is ali...from nufus.

so the order of appearance is the order of the qur'an.​

----
you said imam Husayn never compromised on truth etc. etc. [which is fine and we agree with you]. but you started out introducing the event of najran delegation in a filmy style that tahir or the pope's chauffeurs love to recount. [apparently "aal al-bayt" are registrants for "BAPTISM site" sub'HanAllah.] and the letters of RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam to christian rulers speaks louder than anything else: "aslim taslam".

the whole of surah aal imran came to refute christians and challenge them demanding them to come to islam, if they hope for salvation, but fools and ignoramuses try to present this as a christian-pleasing event. astaghfirullahi'l azeem.

the event is not at all like you [hasnayn] or tahir or the part-christian royals of jordan are trying to portray.

RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam refuted them and commanded them to forsake their heresy, polytheism [trinity] and to accept islam. whereas, people are now saying that we should accept trinity as a valid theological concept! and people like jifry, abdal hakim (tim winters) and the rest of the brigade, shows pearly whites - partly in deference to christians, partly in apology.

shame on those who are apologetic about their faith.

----
the event of mubahala with najranis is bigger example for being with Haqq than the tragedy of karbala; apart from the obvious reasons, (for the really thick: the former was with RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam and the latter is because of his grandson our imam, Husayn raDiyallahu anhu) in this even RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam taught us [which Allah ta'ala taught him]:

1. to never compromise with those who are not of our aqidah; nor make adjustments just to make them happy

2. to ardently refute heresies and heretics; even challenge them to mubahala, if need be;

3. to never bother about their pomp and show - and instead focus on the fact that we are on truth disregarding their worldly pomp and show

4. truth is truth - tell it in their faces even if they dislike it. don't make politically correct statements - state the truth plainly.

5. our purpose on this earth is to exalt the name of Allah. not to pander to sensibilities and fancies of those who have gone astray.

6. the mubahala was not just to highlight the importance of ahl al-bayt; rather the mubahalah was to teach us: to exalt the name of Allah ta'ala, even the highest and noblest must come out and fight for the name of Allah ta'ala. - they should be the foremost and ready to face any challenge.

i have written a lot more concerning the context of najran delegation etc. in MFM; which i have skipped here.

-----
Allah ta'ala knows best.

 

have been out most of the day - though i logged in to check a few times. i wrote most of it last night but was tired and couldn't post. wa billahi't tawfiq.

did he say that this qur'anic verse or was it just an explanation? your charge is certainly valid if monawwar sahib claimed that this is the qur'anic verse - and after asking him for clarification, he insists that he considers it a part of the verse (al-iyadhu billah).

remember years ago pir abdul qadir shah said about yazeed and recited a poem and started half-way to something, which was indeed kufr when taken without that context. it was thereafter clarified and we accepted that it was a slip of the tongue and was totally unintended. i even apologised for commenting on that. [hint: "soya hai kahaN jaag...]

---
your playing the classic case of 'red herring'.

---

as it happens we didn't see the clip. but even otherwise, i do not think anyone who calls himself a muslim would insist that a certain word is a part of the qur'an intentionally. and if a person intentionally ADDS WORDS to the qur'an and claims that it is revelation, there is no question that such a person is kafir.

however, if one says so mistakenly - for example, anybody who has read fiqh books will know that a prominent topic in mufsidat of prayer is zallatu'l qari or 'error in recitation'. there are various masayil concerning "making errors in recitation." one mas'alah is what if someone adds a word in the verse that is not there. let me cite an authority such as ibn abidin [radd al-muHtar 1/689] under the heading: "issues related to errors made by the reciter" [masayil zallatu'l qari']

we say: mistakes can be in iyrab, that is the diacritics [harakat, sukun]; such as single vowel [takhfif] is recited as double [mushaddad] or elongation [madd] is recited short - or vice versa.

or [the mistake is] in letters by transposing them, or by adding a letter, or by dropping one, or by advancing a letter or sending it further.

or in [adding, transposing, mixing up etc] words,

or even in sentences.

----​

ibn abidin continues: (i am translating relevant snippets to keep the focus on the discussion)

the principle of earlier scholars [mutaqaddimin] concerning such an alteration [taghyir] is that if it alters the meaning to something which is kufr to believe, salat [prayer, namaz] will be nullified in all such cases [1] regardless of such a mistake being in the Qur'an or otherwise [2]. except when one transposes a full aayah or with at a proper stop [3]
...
...
similarly, when one says something which is not in the qur'an nor does it mean anything; for example, instead of ka's sarayir, one reads ka's sarayil.
...
...
however, the later scholars such as ibn muqatil, ibn salam, ismayil al-zahid, abu bakr al-balkhi, hindwani, ibn al-fadl, halwani all agree on the position that mistake of diacritics [iyrab] will not invalidate prayer absolutely, even if its meaning is kufr [if one believes in it] because majority of people do not take care to properly differentiate [between letters, iyrab].

qaDi khan said: 'the opinion of later scholars is accommodating [awsa'] but that of elder scholars is cautious [aHwaT]'

and if the mistake is because of replacing letters: if it is not easy to mix up such as Taa and Saad (ط ص), then if the meaning is altered the salat is invalidated, for example, if one reads TaliHaat for SaliHaat [الطالحات الصالحات] but if it is easy to mix-them up such as Saad with seen (س ص) or Dhaa with Daad (ظ ض) many scholars lean towards the opinion that salat is not invalidated, because it is a widespread affliction (umum al-balwa).
​

the discussion is quite lengthy with various examples, and we select only that part which is relevant to the discussion at hand:

[if he adds a word] know that the added word is

a) either from the qur'an or
b) not [from the qur'an]; ​

regardless, [such an addition] will:

a) either distort the meaning
b) or not [distort the meaning].​

if it distorts the meaning salah is invalidated absolutely as in...[examples truncated]

..and if the meaning is not distorted:

a) if such a word is from the qur'an such as 'wa bi'l walidayni iHsana' [and adds] "birran"[4] according to them [5] prayer is not invalidated.

b) of if such a word is not from the qur'an such as 'fakihatun wa nakhlun [and adds] tuffaH wa rumman' [6]; according to the commentator as it appears shortly, it will not invalidate prayer; but imam abu yusuf said that it will invalidate BECAUSE it is a word not found in the qur'an.​

-------------------------------

the point that i am trying to make is, in spite of all this, no one said that 'such an addition is also kufr and the person should become a muslim first, repeat their nikaH and thereafter repeat the namaz.' because within this context, it is obvious that no muslim will deliberately add such a thing. it could be due to confusion which is implicit in the discussion.

coming to monawwar sahib's purported statement, i couldn't listen to it - but i am sure that shaykh monawwar will never insist that the extra words are from the qur'an. was he thinking about something else? was it because he confused a hadith (even a fabricated one - going by nawaz/hasnain's citation) and thought that it is an uncommon recitation? [i myself checked al-nashr of imam jazry, to check and i couldn't see this addition as a variant reading; see 2/238 onwards].

as for 'not being in the qur'an' - your own father and yourself recite the qur'an in a manner which is "not in the qur'an" by adding or dropping letters or altering the diacritics or not pronouncing them as it should be done. anyway, this is just a sidenote though many speakers have this problem and unfortunately muftis too don't spend time learning proper tajwid. dawat e islami deserves full points on this count, for raising the awareness - every person in dawateislami (i have seen at least) knows that it is necessary to learn tajwid, try as much as they can to learn or recite with tajwid - at the least, they are aware that not reciting with tajwid is a serious shortcoming.

------------------------------
more later, in sha'Allah.

Footnotes:

1. whether a letter or a word - for example it is said that Allahu Akbaar is kufr and nullifies salah, because Akbar means Greatest and it is said Akbaar with elongated alif is the son of iblis; similarly, Aaallahu akbar would be kufr because it would mean: "is Allah the Greatest?" which implies doubt. ibn abidin has lengthy explanation of all possible 'elongations' [see 1/517].

the classic example of changing diacritics is this ayah which even ibn abidin mentions as altering the fat'Hah to Dammah invalidates salah:




if it is read yakhsha Allahu min `ibadihi, it would mean: "Allah fears among His slaves.."
whereas it is yakhsha Allaha min `ibadihi: "[those] who fear Allah among His slaves..."

HOWEVER, zarkashi notes in burhan [1/240; category 23] that the first is also reported as a variant [by imam abu Hanifah via `umar ibn `abd al-Azeez]. zarkashi says: in this case, the meaning of 'yakhsha' would be 'to give importance' 'deems important' and not 'fear'.qurtubi has also mentioned this in his tafsir of this verse [FaTir, 35:28].

2. as mentioned in footnote above. making a mistake in takbir is nullifier when its meaning is distorted to one of kufr.

3. waqf taamm: a stop where the sentence ends and is disjointed from the following phrase/words, even though it is within one single aayah. this is one example. [see zarkashi's burhan for a concise explanation with examples, vol.1/category 24: waqf wa'l ibtida'a; also see manar al-huda of ashmuni for extensive surah-wise listing; also al-nashr of imam jazry 1/262]

4. surah baqarah 2:83; birran is a word found elsewhere in the qur'an and for a similar verse; thus it does not distort the meaning, rather reinforces it. however, it is a fact that birran is not a word of this ayah and obviously an addition.

5. those mentioned in the discussion; as i said this is a relevant extract from a lengthy discussion

6. surah al-Rahman, 55:68
​

 

the link that shah sahib posted was not broken and the video was removed as a result of the post. not sure if anyone had a chance to view it. aq is right the video should not have been removed a clarification/retraction/tawbah should have been made then removed. (that is if the allegation was true)

Shah Sahib your video should also be taken down and you should retract/apologise and do tawbah for distorting, inserting details that are not true.

Allah Ta'ala save us all from the perennialists, Ameen

 

Faraz does not seem impressed by Hasnain and is holding himself tight in not showing that hehehehehe

Masjid Riyad ul Jannah was supposed to be a second Sunni Masjid in a major Suburb of the Greater Toronto Area; but being owned by a Sullah Kulli jahil indian pir, and dominated by Faraz what would you expect

 

The person on the left of Hasnain [ between him and Faraz, the one in the strange white amama ] is also from England [ UK immigrant to Canada after marriage to a Canadian ] and is a payed teacher at Masjid Riyad ul Jannah that is owned by a jahil indian pir claiming to be of the suhrawardi order, and a Sunni

 

Either post your evidence or stop making claims about ulama that you can't even back up.

 

Think sheeple. Think, sheeple!

 

mr. "Do not close a door that you are unable to open."

you're beyond pathetic! seriously, you are!

whether it is me or you or monawwar ateeq or anyone else -

Islam defines men.

men do not define Islam.

so if Monawwar Ateeq lied against the Quran and Prophet, 3alaihis salam, (something not yet proven as your link is broken) that is a daleel for permissibility of the act for you?

Haq defines men.

men do not define Haq.

if Monawwar Ateeq did indeed lie against the Quran or the Prophet, 3alaihis salam, he is just as guilty as you. the charge however, is yet to be substantiated.

plus if Monawwar really did say as you allege, he shouldn't have just removed the video (if at all he did as you state, and then removed the video later after he realised his error), but in addition to that, should have also released a second video highlighting his mistake (be it innocent slip due to confusion or deliberate lie), and a retraction and tawbah, to make things crystal clear.

----

it's interesting that you have ignored this part of my post:

and rather brought in the appeal to authority fallacy.

if some famous molvi was caught drinking, that would probably legalize drinking for you!

----

these guys seem to be just like the deobandi faraz. the "truth" for them is defined by their "akabir".

the deos also have this attitude of "but hakeemul ummat said it, so it can't be false" (appeal to authority fallacy)

----

and you still need to identify those "sectarian judges"!

oh, and you really make make that sherwani look ugly!

 

What video? Link doesn't work.

 

I think to test your sincerity in the issue, I will just await your response to the following by respected mufti munawwar ateeq rizvi sahib. The topic is identical, i.e., about the ayah of mubahala. What do you have here: See from 47:00-50:00.

He ADDS extra words to the ayah of the Quran which actually do not exist and No muslim in the world would excuse the ADDITION to the verse of the Quran. He reads the ayah and adds after Anfusana wa anfusakum...."asheeratuna wa asheeratukum"... What is your opinion about that. Imagine If I had said it...you guys would have field Day

Now would shaykh abu hasan say the following about that:

Secondly, Mufti sahib says that Huzur Paak (sallalahu alayhi wa aalihi wasallam) took the families of Hazrat Abu Bakr and Hazrat Umar, etc. also to the plains of Mubahala. First of all, the entire classical sunni literature including sahih muslim state that only the Panjtan paak went. There is a fabricated report in History of Ibn Asakir (d. 571 AH) which does not exist prior to the 6th century and it is declared a fabrication. For example, The principle reporter of the report is الهيثم بن عدي and he is declared a Kazzab, LIAR by Ibn Maeen, Bukhari, Nasai, Abu Daood, al-Ijli, al-Saji, al-Tahawi, al-bayhaqi, etc. to name but a few. So to ignore the authentic narrations in the entire classical literature and to fix the meaning of the verse, not only adding extra words to the Qur'an but also citing fabrications as the truth.

Now, I will await your comments on my dear brother Mufti Ateeq Rizvi sahib. Let us See, How on Haq you guys are

The video. see from 47:00-50:00:

 

hasnain and his father are money hungry conmen just like faraz the dirty hippy. let hasnain give the references for the lies he spews or let him remember the hadith that he who deliberately lies against the Prophet, 3alaihis salam, has reserved his place in hell-fire.

may Allah destroy all those who lie against His Prophet, 3alaihis salam.

so the hasnain and his daddy have no problems with deobandis?

or are they just trying to cash in on faraz's fan base now that mufakkir e miraasian (the great thinker on miraasis) has insulted them and booted them out?

 

and yet, just because he ended his talk with the praise of the ahl-al-bayt, unassuming listeners with little exposure to the deen, not knowing the etiquettes of mentioning the Prophet (peace be upon him), the standards that need to be observed in narrating his (peace be upon him) seerah and the highly sensitive nature of the subject, won't find anything amiss.

inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji'un.

 

http://www.ridawipress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Minhaji_Fata_Morgana.pdf

thus everyone should read the above

faraz just sits there with a smile on his face but he is after all kazzab kellers chum

 

ridiculous. i think this is the worst speaker, i have heard in recent times.

he adds a lot of spice to narrations and inserts details that even tahir did not do.

@20.00: "RasulAllah stands up and said: 'ahlan wa sahlan' he says salam to them. respects them."

and then adds drama and theatrics. "we are poor. be our guests.." all of these descriptions are lies. these liars and frauds are trying to present sayyiduna wa mawlana RasulAllah sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam in a manner that is totally contradictory to his exalted rank and his pristine approach, his awe-inspiring majlis, his awesome presence.

hasanayn also is also sort-of disrespectful when he uses an example of "mulla of today" talking about RasulAllah sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam. [he does not compare but says "if he were like a mulla of today" which i find offensive too. one should mention RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam with utmost respect and care.]


-----
sub'HanAllah!

if i remember well, i cross checked the events of najran in about 30-40 major works of hadith, commentaries, histories, biographies (particularly books of siyar sharif) and i feel indignant at the unscrupulous manner in which juhala present this event by distorting it and to suit their perennialist agenda or to lick christian-boots.

inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji'un.